|
|
Barack Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States, as the country chose him as its first African American chief executive.
Share your thoughts on this historic election.
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
|
Posts:
2,191
Registered:
6/23/09
|
|
(24693 of 24724)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 21, 2009 12:41 AM
|
Don17000
No, the cost of health care does not include insurance. If you're wondering why not...
When you look to see how much a car will cost you each month, you will include the cost of insurance. So, why not with health insurance?
Most people pay insurance, which opens the gate to healthcare. The cost of insurance is how most people will pay for their care. Whether or not you use your insurance will not change that you are paying for health insurance, or that you are incurring costs related to healthcare.
With car insurance, the less you use it, the better a driver you are, the less you will pay. With health insurance your use and health are meaningless. With the new healthcare bill, a person in bad health cannot be charged more for insurance, than someone who is healthy. Add in that people with preexisting conditions cannot be denied, no lifetime maxes, that will mean that the way in which people incurr the cost of healthcare, their insurance rate will rise.
To the car manufacturer the insurance is not included, but for the person purchasing the car, it does.
Whether or not I use the insurance will not change that my health care cost is what I pay for insurance.
I get what you are saying. You are keeping insurance costs, separate from what is paid out for healthcare. But, for most the cost of healthcare is the cost of insurance.
We have a healthcare system that is under employed.
> As we add more people to the field the demand for
> r their services will increase, meaning the costs
> will.
You keep saying this, but you don't back it up with anything. Health care is one of those fields where it just may not apply the way it does in buying other services. In fact, taking the lesser need for cost-shifting into account, the opposite effect is more likely.
At the current time, healthcare professionals are in demand. It is the one industry that continues to grow and is expected to keep growing. That is fact. I am sure you have seen the articles and surveys. Because their skill is in demand, high demand, they will get higher salaries and more benefits, meaning the cost to employee these people will be higher. That is just as of today. Now we add all these people that now have the ability to pay for services into the system. The demand for healthcare professionals will not decrease but increase. Their demand will be even higher than it is today. That will result in higher costs.
If you have a doctor's office, operated by just one doctor, it is conceivable to think his cost of business will not change. In the end it's marginal costs. If he has 100 patients and he adds 5, he probably will not incurr large expenses. But, if he adds 25 or 50 he may have to hire more nurese, another receptionist, billers, enlarge the waiting room, or need a larger office. That will increase his cost of business.
At some point the as always prices/costs will stabilize. But, over the next five to ten years, they will be rising.
As I understand it, at least from NY, is that the way in which premiums are determined is by county. So, one hospital may not experience a large increase, but if others in that area do, the premiums will rise.
--
Edited by sunaz at 11/20/2009 9:43 PM PST
|
|
|
Posts:
1,863
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(24692 of 24724)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 10:34 PM
|
S2G,
Dobbs, the new Limbaugh, the new Palin. LOL!
Check that! Palin's got LEGS! As in REAL (well, sort of) LEGS(!)
I like her in panty-hose(?) anyway.
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
1,863
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(24691 of 24724)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 10:27 PM
|
s2g,
Agree totally with your characterization of congress persons.
As to whom the primary villains are; I'm torn.
Me thinks you are primarily a democtrat hater, which case you are wrong.
Get over it if that's the case; there's MUCH more productive things to do.
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
4,919
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
(24690 of 24724)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 10:25 PM
|
> Here's a funny!
>
> Racist nut-job and former CNN talking head, Lou
> Dobbs, has announced that he may run against
> President Obama in 2012- and wait for it.... as a
> third party candidate!!!!!!!!!!  Har har har!
> What a fucking genius!
Cyn,
At least my guess that Dobbs would run for Texas Senator made some sense.
I guess Dobbs'll be the Freddie Thompson of 2012. What big egos these guys have!
|
|
|
Posts:
4,919
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
(24689 of 24724)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 10:17 PM
|
> > I did not compare them to a bakery
>
> Oh really?
>
> > So, have you ever gone to a supermarket? They have
> a bakery department and a deli department. Are they a
> business? No, they are part of the whole store, just
> part of a service they provide.
>
> > So, a state has PD and FD, they are not businesses,
> they are part of the service provided by the state to
> its citizens. Paid for, through taxes.
>
> What kind of moron lies like that when we can just
> scroll down?
JaredP,
The paid troll kind of moron.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,919
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
(24688 of 24724)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 10:16 PM
|
> > Whatever the outcomes are, will not change what
> they are. If the deli provides bad service the store
> is responsible, if the police provide bad service the
> state is responsible.
>
> And if I do something, I'm responsible. Only a moron
> would conclude that because three dissimilar things
> (government, store, and me) take money, perform
> activities, and are responsible for our actions, they
> are stores.
>
> Your analogy is nonsense.
>
> --
> Edited by JaredP at 11/19/2009 1:44 PM PST
JaredP,
A prostitute takes money, provides services & activities I guess is responsible for her/his actions.
Oh wait, that's also the definition of a Congressman/woman.
|
|
|
Posts:
4,919
Registered:
3/19/05
|
|
(24687 of 24724)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 10:08 PM
|
Don17000,
Best of luck in cracking the rock.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,863
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(24686 of 24724)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 9:14 PM
|
Why I hate the >>quote format.
It promotes a "mindless in your face refutation" format, which further promotes a "mindless in your face refutation" mindset.
I don't like it, I've NEVER liked it, and I don't EVER ANTICIPATE LIKING IT IN THE FUTURE!
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
2,975
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24685 of 24724)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 9:06 PM
|
> Don17000
>
> Except that the post office has to deliver to
> every address in the country (they can't just skip
> areas, such as rural locations they would lose money
> on serving), and they don't get to set their own
> rates. They have to ask Congress for permission if
> they think they need to charge an extra penny. You
> think FedEx and UPS have to go through that? If a
> postal employee knowingly misdirects mail, it's a
> federal crime. Can't say the same for the others.
>
> You are seeing the difference, I hope, between doing
> business, and being a business.
>
> Yes they have to deliver to every address. Put,
> since they have a monopoly on first class and third
> class mail, any piece of mail sent, has to be sent by
> them. FedEx and UPS deliver to every address. Due
> to the Post office's monopoly allows them to provide
> cheaper service for priority and express mail, since
> they go to those addresses already.
>
Big difference, though. UPS and FedEx only have to go to out of the way places when they're called. USPS goes there every day, because they may have mail to pick up, and the customers there don't have to call.
> The post office is owned by the federal gov't, and is
> basically operated by it. If I pay more for the
> service or our tax dollars go toward it, would not
> change how much it costs per person to operate.
They get no tax dollars, and the Federal government doesn't own them. They are independent, since 1971. The only real connection is that the President appoints 9 of the 11 governors, with Senate consent. Of the other two, the chairman is selected by the 9, and deputy chair is selected by the other 10.
And I was wrong about Congress setting the rates. The governors now do that.
It
> creates an artificially cheaper service. The problem
> with any gov't run business, especially when
> politicians won't give up control, is they act
> politically, not what is in the best interest of the
> business or those who it serves.
>
No, not with any government-run business. Consider another type of government-run business. Consider emergency medicine. Or mass transit. Or a county run transit terminal, whether an airport, train station, seaport or bus terminal.
> Most businesses operate based on profits, a state, or
> gov't operates by political profits.
>
> Just as a business may choose to use the most
> profitable strategy, gov't chooses the best
> political.
>
No, a lot of the time, they just don't. If they did, they would not raise taxes as often as they do. And they would have passed a health care bill a long time ago. Lobbyists would have no clout at all unless they could deliver votes.
|
|
|
Posts:
1,863
Registered:
3/13/08
|
|
(24684 of 24724)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 9:06 PM
|
I haven't had time to get caught up on this thread in depth (it appears pretty deep AND wide on first blush), but I REALLY like Don17000's comments on corporations.
Don, IMO, REALLY GET'S the nature of corporations and their pernicious effects on American democracy. There's some SERIOUS THERE there IMO.
Secondly and finally, I SERIOUSLY doubt whether enough Americans DAILY think about and appreciate the difference between the terms "Democracy" and "Capitalism." There IS a difference, you know? Perhaps THAT should be a main point of educational advancement?
DaN
|
|
|
Posts:
2,696
Registered:
6/8/09
|
|
(24683 of 24724)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 8:34 PM
|
> > Right.
> >
> > In a capitalist system the corporation is
> expected to
> > maximize profit- period. Any person who is not
> a
> > "stakeholder" (on the board of directors and the
> CEO
> > and his personal staff) can be classified into
> 2
> > categories:
> >
> > 1. Sheep to be sheared (customers).
> These
> > Sheep are to be exploited for maximum profit.
> Give
> > them the least value for their money, and get as
> much
> > money from them as you can. Watch the film
> > Glenngarry Glen Ross and you'll get the
> idea.
> > " A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Closing. Always be
> > e closing, always be closing."
> >
> > 2. Enemies (competition, vendors,
> employees).
> > These people either steal Sheep from the
> > e Stakeholders or worse yet, have a negative
> cash
> > flow claim against the Stakeholders for either
> > services, supplies, or wages. These claims must
> be
> > minimized without mercy.
> >
> > So, when well meaning people say that
> "Government
> > should be run like a business," they don't know
> what
> > they are asking for. I don't think a
> Representative
> > Democracy should treat me like either a Sheep to
> be
> > Sheared or as an Enemy.
>
longball:
> What simplistic nonsense.
What do you expect in 4 paragraphs? And, who the fuck asked you anyway?
The point, Sunaz pretends to think that private enterprise perform government services oh so much more "efficently." Too bad he doesn't understand what productivity is.
In the world of the Conservative, these services should be done by private enterprise because their pals the Capitalists can skim money off the top. Money that would have otherwise gone to the people to be helped. But, you know what? Fuck 'Em. They are weak, right?
The real weaklings are the Conservatives.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,975
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24682 of 24724)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 8:26 PM
|
> Don17000
>
> No, it isn't. A corporation is just an
> artificially created entity. It doesn't have to do
> any business, doesn't have to own anything, pay
> anything, or have any money. It just has to be
> registered in the records of the state wherein it's
> incorporated. You can form a corporation and never do
> a thing with it. The corporation still exists.
>
> A business can be a form of corporation, but doesn't
> have to be.
>
> Are you kinding me? A corporation is a form of
> business. It is a type of business. It is a form of
> ownership of a business.
>
No, I'm not kidding you. A corporation is only a construct on paper. There are thousands of shell corporations created every year, corporations which are not businesses, and which do no business. Most of them are offshore, in places like Panama or the Caymans, or Netherlands Antilles.
I know this, because my father had a Swiss and a Panamanian one when he was alive. He formed them to eventually receive funds from a business deal he was working on, but the deal, which also involved a Brazilian company was never completed. The others in the deal had similar corporations in Bermuda and Curacao.
These corporations' only purposes were to own shares of another corporation. Others are formed, whose only purpose is to be a barrier to taxation. It does no business, it owns nothing except shares of another corporation, it has no money or other assets; it has directors who do meet only once a year because the law requires it, and the directors meet, decide they have nothing to discuss, and adjourn.
|
|
|
Posts:
2,975
Registered:
10/22/06
|
|
(24681 of 24724)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 8:11 PM
|
> Actually, they are usually run as separate profit
> centers, which is to say, similar to being their own
> businesses. Similar to the way Lincoln and Mercury
> are divisions of Ford, but more like the service dept
> and fleet sales dept of a dealership.
>
> They have a budget, just a the FD and PD do. They
> are accounted for separately, but fall under one
> budget/ balance sheet. I do think it is a fair
> analogy.
>
> You want to look at departments that aren't profit
> centers, try those that just can't generate revenue.
> Like the human resources department, or the IT
> department.
>
> I had thought of that, but went with my first
> choice.
>
> A state is a business. The purpose may be different,
> but in the end it is a business. As I said under the
> exact definition, it probably would not fit or an
> english teacher would not agree. But, at the end of
> the day it is a business. A state needs revenues in
> other to operate, some of which is by law and some of
> which is by choice. There are laws that businesses
> must follow and expenses incurred because of, just as
> states must follow laws regarding services.
>
They have similarities, granted. But also dissimilarities. A business produces goods or provides services, and it generates most of its revenue from the sale of those goods and services. Its customers do not have to do business, and if they can decline services don't want and not incur the expense, or if they didn't like the way the services were provided, they can refuse to pay, it's only a civil matter.
A government may also provide goods and services, but that accounts for the bulk of its expenses, and actually very little if any, of its revenue. Its revenue comes from taxation. The taxation must be paid whether any services are used or not, and it doesn't matter if the customer is satisfied with the services or goods provided, the customer must still pay. Failure to do so is a punishable offense.
> A state should be run like a business. It seems to
> me your equation is business=evil. That is not the
> case. But, don't act like gov't is any different,
> they exploit people too.
No, a state should not be run like a business, unless its purpose is the same. The purpose of a business is to generate profit. It cannot exist simply to serve the public. A business must serve itself first.
|
|
|
Posts:
3,208
Registered:
5/8/06
|
|
(24680 of 24724)
Re: President Barack Obama
Nov 20, 2009 2:40 PM
|
> Most businesses operate based on profits, a state, or
> gov't operates by political profits.
>
> Just as a business may choose to use the most
> profitable strategy, gov't chooses the best
> political.
>
> So, yes a gov't/state is a business, whether we want
> it to be or not.
Contract law 101. Every business engages in commerce ie the buying and selling of goods or services. Every sale is by definition a contract.
Contracts must by law contain certain elements - a meeting of the minds, offer and acceptance, mutual consideration, performance or delivery, good faith etc.Here's an elementary explanation.
NONE of those elements are present when dealing with the government. You may not opt out. You are given no choice.
The government is not a business.
|
|
|
|
|
